Tommy Vercetti is an example of what I'm talking about, though. He's not really charismatic, he's just a douchebag. The only praise I can offer him is that in a world of grimdark douchebags, it was slightly refreshing to go back and watch a sociopath from a slightly brighter era. But he's not charming, except in the same sense one might conflate "bitchiness" for an endearing characteristic.
The idea that this is somehow different than the topic at hand is comical. It's a farce. A travesty for the masses.
I don't think we played the same game. Especially since Sonelli, Diaz or Lance Vance fit more the "douchebag" label for fucking Tommy over in first place.
Now that I think it... Tommy won't fit the "asshole" label since he won't attack you unless you cross him and/or stand in the way of his operations.
All of this is true of the joker, an arguably brilliant character and villain. His fans are not stupid.
If your conclusion on any situation is "i guess these people are just dumb" a LOT of the time youre probably just not trying to see it from their perspective, its very easy to just declare them stupid and move on. I tend to heavily critique my own perspective when i come to this conclusion.
Theres been a trend lately to make villains always have a soft side, or a personal justification or to add some humanity in them or to earn our understanding. Villains or even heroes that abandon a lot of that can be pretty entertaining and unique simply because it allows them to earn our pity without any of our support. Its why the joker is such a good villain.
Its also quite rare in media for women to be properly angry and in a position to use that anger to actually do things. Consider this:
Can you remember a scenario where a woman was unapologetically angry and actually got to unleash that anger to change the situation? Probably, but they are probably outnumbered by scenarios where:
The women is demure and accepting and doesnt show such an ugly emotion.
The woman is held back (sometimes physically and literally) by men/other characters/herself to render her rage almost pitiful rather than reactionary.
Women have a history at the very least of being characters whose every action and choice, clothing, speech ect was done to please/pander to a third party, the audience or another character. Selfishness, even being selfish toward the audience, is refreshing in a female character, anger that exists to please me isnt a real representation of anger, its meant to be raw and ugly and brutal and i think its worth showing that aspect of it in media.
Anger is ugly. And since a lot of media likes to paint their female characters in terms of any sort of beauty (Either inner or outer so we can relate on at least one level) having a totally ugly personality in a woman character is a rarity. Its nice to see a woman in media who is apologetically angry for any reason, justified or otherwise just because it better represents reality.
Theres a difference between liking a character and LIKING a character so to speak. I LIKE the joker as a character. I wouldnt be friends with him at a bar. That doesnt make me stupid id like to think. I just realize the appreciation of fiction doesn't involve wanting the fiction to be true or even analogous in my own life. Its a pretty simple concept.
Not to mention ***** seems to be the female word for badass except with negative connotations. I struggle to think of many "badass" male characters who arnt excessively cruel when you really think about it, lack empathy and generally dont give a fuck about anyone else (or very few people). When female a *****, when male a badass.
Not to mention ***** seems to be the female word for badass except with negative connotations. I struggle to think of many "badass" male characters who arnt excessively cruel when you really think about it, lack empathy and generally dont give a fuck about anyone else (or very few people). When female a *****, when male a badass.
I should probably have mentioned this earlier, but we're probably not going to get anywhere with this argument (I mean, even more than usual) unless we actually decide what our criteria for calling a female character a ***** is. Personally, I only use it for female characters I don't like. Also, my dividing line between likable badass (even if villainous) and unlikable is a combination of pettiness, motive, and targeting. I don't like characters who are pointlessly cruel just to be cruel (though I forgive them if they make me laugh), and I don't like characters who are really cruel to the characters I do like. However, if I want to punch a character, and then another character punches them, that makes me like them.
Also, I'm willing to like villains who possess a certain degree of class. Even if they break the above rules, grand ambitions, self-assurance that they can back up, and solid villain speeches can sell me on them.
Now, one example of a female character I do like is Rita from Edge Of Tomorrow, who has the nickname Fullmetal ***** in-universe but not to her face.
In addition to being rather sharp-tongued, she has a habit of shooting the protagonist in the face to reset the time loop. But there's a point to that: they can't lose the looping power so it's best to reset once a loop dead-ends.
I should probably have mentioned this earlier, but we're probably not going to get anywhere with this argument (I mean, even more than usual) unless we actually decide what our criteria for calling a female character a ***** is.
I don't think calling a charachter a "*****" is the issue....its weather or not she works
I hoesntly do think female charachters...due to mis handling and just plain old expectations will get more hate them male charachters
[b/]that aside[/b] I think like a lot of others things its the context and the intention of the Creators, if a charachter comes across a different way that whats intended then they kind of faild
if they want a female charachter to be seen as "tough" yet she acts like a total jerk (note I say jerk and not bitxh) [i/]with very little reason[/i] then....thats a failure if however:
[quote/]Now, one example of a female character I do like is Rita from Edge Of Tomorrow, who has the nickname Fullmetal ***** in-universe but not to her face.
In addition to being rather sharp-tongued, she has a habit of shooting the protagonist in the face to reset the time loop. But there's a point to that: they can't lose the looping power so it's best to reset once a loop dead-ends.
[/quote]
like your example it makes sense in context then...well thats fine, [i/]its still sterotypical[/i] and we could have another 20 page discussion on token female-ism, but her Bitchyness makes sense
I don't think we played the same game. Especially since Sonelli, Diaz or Lance Vance fit more the "douchebag" label for fucking Tommy over in first place.
I don't think we played the same game. Especially since Sonelli, Diaz or Lance Vance fit more the "douchebag" label for fucking Tommy over in first place.
Nah, it's because Forelli, Diaz or even Lance (at the later stages, when he's all needy and shit which leads to betraying Tommy) are flat-out unlikeable. Especially since it's implied in-dialog that Forelli set up both Hardwood and Vice City ambushes; Tommy's solo outing practically justifies itself at the end.
I think its like how men like strong Badass characters. Women like strong bad ass women, but people dont seem to be able to write badass women characters, unless they are a complete *****.
So since the only common option available for women in the badass girl department is mean women, then its unsurprising that these characters are popular.
Butter cup was my favourite powerpuff girl. She didn't exactly come off as a ***** to me though. None of them did. She was just a bit hotheaded and crude.
What did you do to her hair Nippon!? what did you do to it!!??
Is there a rest of the post where you respond to the point I made where the original poster did not say "all" and you just inserted that from your own assumption of him (aka bias)?
I though explaining how generalisation works was sufficient. Again, generalisation means that you're drawing in general conclusions. It's generalisation. You turn something into a general case. I.e. anything you say would largely hold true for anything under it. How else am I supposed to describe it?
A generalization is a broad statement that applies to many examples.
Of any two related concepts, such as A and B, A is a "generalization" of B [...] if and only if every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A;
Plus others
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/291/641#g2
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalize
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/generalize
http://louisenichols.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/to-what-extent-can-we-generalise-from-our-findings/
https://explorable.com/what-is-generalization
This how generalisation works. Saying "I saw three men wearing yellow shirts, so men wear yellow shirts" is not a good generalisation [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html] because it means that...mean wear yellow shirts. Like all of them. In general. It's the prevalent case. It's the common trait they share. Which part of this do you claim is correct?
Lightknight said:
Why is OP generalising women? Why not "people"? As I explained, it's verbal segregation and also by generalising to women it does imply it's...well, women as even generalised it's quite specific. Had OP said "people" then yes, it'd fit, but again - segregation.
This is why people ask questions. It's because they're ignorant about the topic. When you don't know something you should ask. Basic learning 101. That's why you response should have just been that all people like the *****/jackass hero because it means they're tough and independent of the people around them. Not "how dare you think ALL women are like X" even though he used the phrase correctly, without the word all. You just mentally inserted that in his question.
1. IT IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT A GENERALISATION IS. TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER POSTERS WHO CONCLUDED THE SAME THING. THIS IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT A GENERALISATION IS.
If you take concepts A and B, then B would be a generalisation of A if all As share the trait generalised in B. For example, we have a set of balls as your concept A
Concept A
If you thought something different, you have a dirty mind.
Then you can generalise this as "All balls are round" which is concept B.
"All women think X"
Is a generalisation. However the path to the conclusion you made is "I asked some women something and they said X, therefore all women think X".
See top and explain how "men wear yellow shirts" is correct.
Lightknight said:
Now, the OP literally started the sentence by describing the specific cases he is basing the generalization on. He set up a text book generalization scenario and then you came in here and read it literal. That's on you, not the OP.
Anyway: yet again, yes, as I said, OP generalised. It's in my first response which I also quoted. I hope I do not have to yet again explain what "general" is and what it implies about all the clustered instances.
I think the verb choices in this sentence is an exceptionally ironic mistake.
OT: I must admit that I would refrain from calling any five year old a *****. In the case, of a "type of woman," what does ***** even mean anymore? Like "fuck," ***** could mean anything from a woman a person walks all over to a woman doing the walking and anything in between. Buttercup, in particular, is hard to label since, like all good characters, she's well rounded.
I don't even know what a '*****' character is...
A female character has been described as a ***** or 'bitchy' to me for following reasons:
a) being assertive
b) being loud
c) being emotionally cold
d) killing someone for fun
e) dressing in a feminine way
f) being a werewolf
G) not returning the feelings of a male character
h) being the leader
i) being stubborn
I'm guessing for the same reason that a lot of men like these snarky, super confident and hypercompetent male characters. Because it's a fun self-projection fantasy for a lot of people.
Exactly. Batmans a complete and utter asshole, and everyone loves him. No one's questioning why anyone likes batman, so why question why people like bitches.
DementedSheep said:
its something like "*****" when chances are you are going to get called that unless you're completely submissive. It's not like buttercup is particularly bitchy.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here's the biggest part. Unless the female character is a completely submissive wallflower, she's a ***** to everyone, fullstop. Batman can abduct a child off the street into his car, scream at him, and call him a retard, but I've never heard anyone call Batman an asshole, and everyone still loves him.
Woman denies man's advances, or takes control of a situation? "*****"
Well...I'm not sure that example is really fair unless he actually did this in another comic other than All Star? That version of batman isn't how he is usually and most seem to think that was absurd. Though yes batman's still a bit of an asshole (or at least he is in the stuff I've seen him in, I don't read Batman extensively), you get called a ***** for everything and a lot of modern male hero's are assholes as well, possibly most of them so really the only difference is the way they are described when they are talked about. I saw GoG recently and Star Lord is referred to as an asshole/dick in a more affectionate rather than negative way in the movie itself so it's really not all that different to that.
James Bond, asshole. Han Solo, asshole. Wolverine, asshole. Spike (Buffy), asshole. Seems like if there's an asshole good guy in a TV show or movie, then all us guys love him.
Maybe we all just like aggressive characters who aren't afraid of saying and doing what they want, but aren't evil.
I'm guessing for the same reason that a lot of men like these snarky, super confident and hypercompetent male characters. Because it's a fun self-projection fantasy for a lot of people.
I don't really see a parallel of this in male characters, where people like them "Because he's an asshole" or "Because he's a dick" If they happen to like a character that is abrasive, it's usually because of his other traits.
I mean that's kinda there. House ran for 8 seasons and the premise of it is basically "there's a really good doctor who's a dick."
Not that there isn't more depth to him as a character, and the show is actually well written, but boiled down to a sentence that's pretty much what it is.
I don't really see a parallel of this in male characters, where people like them "Because he's an asshole" or "Because he's a dick" If they happen to like a character that is abrasive, it's usually because of his other traits.
I mean that's kinda there. House ran for 8 seasons and the premise of it is basically "there's a really good doctor who's a dick."
Not that there isn't more depth to him as a character, and the show is actually well written, but boiled down to a sentence that's pretty much what it is.
Can confirm; if you're going to make the claim that it's 'something else' then we could say the same for every '*****' character.
Also, if you need more 'jerk' characters...Sherlock Holmes.
Netrigan said:
Why do women like ***** characters.
I don't know. Why do men like asshole characters.
James Bond, asshole. Han Solo, asshole. Wolverine, asshole. Spike (Buffy), asshole. Seems like if there's an asshole good guy in a TV show or movie, then all us guys love him.
Maybe we all just like aggressive characters who aren't afraid of saying and doing what they want, but aren't evil.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
